President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan has expressed his appreciation to the Alaafin of Oyo, Oba Lamidi Olayiwola Adeyemi III for his continuous support of his government in its efforts to accelerate the pace of socio-economic development in Nigeria. President Jonathan, who wrote today to felicitate with the Alaafin on the occasion of his 76th birthday anniversary which comes up tomorrow, Wednesday, commended the monarch’s laudable contributions to peace, harmony and progress in Oyo State and Nigeria. “On behalf of my family, the Government and people of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, I write to convey warm felicitations to Your Highness on the occasion of your 76th birthday anniversary. “You have not only continued to use your exalted throne to promote peace, harmony and progress in your kingdom and Oyo State, you have also continued to provide unwavering support for our Administration in our determined quest to reposition our dear nation for enduring stability and sustained growth and development. For this, I thank Your Highness.” President Jonathan wished Oba Adeyemi very happy birthday celebrations, even as he prayed to God to continue to bless the Alaafin with good health and grant him many more years of worthy service to Oyo State and Nigeria.
Access to Justice, a None Governmental Organization (NGO) has alleged that the federal security agencies have completely shut down all the courts in Ekiti state against the directive by the National Judicial Council that the courts be re-opened for business. The state Chief Judge had ordered the closure of State High Courts following repeated attacks on Judges, court staff and users in September 2014 by persons associated with Ekiti State Governor-elect, Ayo Fayose. In a statement today, the Coordinator of the Access to Justice, Mrs. Chinelo Chinweze said that all other courts in the state, including the Court of Appeal, the Federal Courts, election petition tribunals and the Magistrates courts, which are clustered together in the same vicinity have been sealed off. “No cases are being heard in courts now. The courts will remain closed for business, it is feared, until October 16 when the Governor-elect is sworn in. The closure is said to represent a strategic political ploy to prevent any “surprises” from courts that may scuttle the inauguration of Ayo Fayose as Governor on the said date.” She wondered why the security forces have altered the 10th October directive of the CJN, the security forces by barricading the courts in Ekiti State, effectively ensuring that the courts in the State were shut and have remained shut till this time. According to her, the police insist that the courts are closed because of a “bomb” said to be planted inside the premises of the courts,” saying however that no bomb has been recovered or shown to the public. “The claim of a bomb threat is so bare of detail or substance, so intangibly sparse and insubstantial as to make it anymore than a stalking horse and subterfuge: the inexorable conclusion must be that the bomb scenario is a deliberately contrived ruse to keep the courts inaccessible until further notice. “The forced closure of courts by security forces under the control of the President is a blatant, troubling trampling on the judicial branch of government. Closing courts under any circumstances has huge and severe consequences for governance, and the rights and obligations of a lot of other people. “What has happened is that a branch of government has effectively shut down the operations of another branch of government! One arm of government is now deciding when, and under what conditions another branch of government can operate. “This is an existential threat to the Judicial function and is clearly a tyrannical use (or abuse) of State power. “In capriciously blocking physical access to courts with force, the Jonathan government has corruptly conscripted state power for illicit ends and has done incalculable damage to the rule of law.” The NGO said it is deeply concerned about the other implications of these actions of the federal government in Ekiti State, adding that blocking access to courts of law will gradually become an attractive option to governments who fear adverse decisions from courts, and the replication of this practice will practically render courts redundant and powerless to effectively adjudicate disputes or exercise judicial functions. “By doing this in Ekiti, the Jonathan administration has gradually ingratiated a virulent and pestilent form of executive lawlessness into our political and governance culture, the effect of which will endure for a long time to come. While this may be fair politics for a government that has little regard for the rule of law, it is also crude politics that is wrecking incalculable damage to our constitutional democracy. “If courts need to be closed for security reasons, the leadership of the courts must be involved in the decision so as to mitigate the risks that such closure may be politically motivated. In this case, even the Chief Judge of Ekiti State was turned back from entering his court.”
The Chief Justice of Nigeria, the NJC and the Nigerian Bar Association should collectively make urgent representations to President Jonathan, and protest this gratuitous effort to insidiously control a branch of government with responsibility to safeguard the Constitution and protect citizen’s rights. The Judiciary must never be a stamping ground for this kind of rabid politics. It will not be enough for the NJC to ask the Chief Judge of Ekiti State to announce the re-opening of courts as it was reported to have done at its meeting on the 13th of October 2014. The Judiciary and the Bar need to show stronger objection, indignation, remonstration and resolve against actions that will likely be replicated if the government does not see credible and resolute opposition to its use. Access to Justice urges the Jonathan administration to lift the siege on the courts now, and let the courts continue their business independently as a branch of government.
As I sat in the office early morning on Monday 13th October 2014, I noticed three different text messages on my phone. The first was from Dr. Abubakar Alhassan and it started with ‘Inna lillahi wa inna ilaihi raji’un’ meaning: ‘from God we came and unto Him we shall return.’ I was in a state of shock before I even started reading the text message, for I knew we must have lost somebody dear to our hearts. The message stated that Professor Ali Mazrui has passed away the night before. There is no better person to break this news to us than Dr. Alhassan, since Dr. Mazrui himself stated that he has two sons called Abubakar, and of course Dr. Alhassan was the second one. Professor Ali Mazrui is a household name not only in Africa but globally. Yet for any student of the social sciences, Professor Ali Mazrui stands out. Here is an African scholar who greeted our screens through his award winning documentary, Africans: A Triple Heritage. He was a professor in almost every major university worthy of its name around the world, an adviser to heads of government, a public intellectual, an activist, African nationalist, historian, sociologist, political scientist and an authority in the study of dialectics and Islamic political thought. Until his death, he was a scholar and global-statesman. It is difficult to find a scholar of his caliber with such humble mien, willing to learn from others, and respect for his students and colleagues alike. In the last fourteen to fifteen years, I have listened to a number of distinguished professors, read some of their works, yet without exaggeration, Professor Ali Mazrui remains exceptional. I only met Professor Ali Mazrui once, courtesy of the effort of Dr. Abubakar Alhassan, who with the support of Bayero University, Kano, invited the erudite professor to deliver a public lecture at the BUK old campus in the year 2000. I was a 300 level undergraduate student then, and Malama Binta Suleiman who was teaching us Broadcast Continuity Writing announced at the end of the class that our next lecture on Saturday morning will not take place. She announced that Professor Ali Mazrui will be delivering a lecture on that day, and so she couldn’t afford to miss it. For we the students, you can imagine the level of excitement for having the once in a lifetime opportunity to listen to one of the most distinguished African Professors in history. Early hours of that Saturday morning, we were at the old campus to make sure we get Sahun Farko (the first row). But within an hour, after a well-coordinated publicity around the city of Kano, the Bayero University theatre became too small to accommodate the sea of human beings flowing into the old campus. It was more than a university event. It was a real public lecture. We were so lucky to get in. Extra television monitors had to be provided in the open theatre, and extended public address systems to cover other areas of the campus so that people could listen to this important lecture. For the audiences jam-packed in and outside the venue, they were only waiting for one thing, the first sight of Professor Ali Mazrui. Our professors, lecturers and other invited guests were already on the high table waiting for the arrival of the special guest. Almost everyone among the who is who of Bayero University was there, and shortly afterwards, the then Deputy Vice Chancellor of the University, Dr. Muhammad Yahuza Bello, as representative of the Vice Chancellor, late Professor Musa Abdullahi, and Professor Emmanuel Ajayi Olofin, the Chairman of the Public Lecture series led Professor Ali Mazrui into the lecture theatre, and within seconds, the entire hall was gripped with a thunderous ovation. Welcome Professor Ali Mazrui. As our teachers of Makarantun ilmi (traditional Islamic schools), always remind us that Al ilm Annaafi’ Yukassiru Sahibuh, a beneficial knowledge humbles its possessor, the first lesson of the day was the humility exhibited right from the introduction of the guest speaker through to the entire event. Professor Olofin, a highly respected Professor of Geography told the gathering that if it would take what Professor Ali Mazrui has done to become a Professor, he himself wouldn’t have been qualified to be one; of course, Professor Olofin has ticked all the dots to be a Professor, yet when the intellectual giants mount the podium, they were so humble that we students could only exchange the smile of admiration. The title of the lecture was “Nigeria Between Lord Lugard and the Digital Divide: Political Culture and the Skill Revolution.” But during the introduction Professor Mazrui stated that his paper is caught between the influence of three personalities, Lugard who amalgamated the northern and southern protectorates of Nigeria, Bill Gates who at the time was the leading symbol of the digital revolution, and of course Uthman Danfodio, the 19th century reformer. It was in the analysis of these three personalities that a glimpse of the dialectical ability of Professor Mazrui to make comparison on issues that might on the surface look unrelated, captivated the audience. “Northern Nigeria was historically the first in literacy among the peoples of Nigeria. Northern Nigeria was also the first in written literature. But Northerners as the first in literacy in the history of Nigeria have not been the first in digitization. Northerners as the first in written literature have not been the first in computerization,” said the Professor. “It is true that even in written literature it was not a Northerner who won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1986. But it is doubtful that the jurors in Sweden for the Nobel Prize bothered to read any literature in Hausa, Kiswahili, Zulu, Igbo or even Soyinka’s own Yoruba language. “This is not a reflection on Soyinka. It is a reflection of the dominance of European languages in our African lives. We are prisoners of Euro-linguistic paradigms,” said Mazrui, who was greeted with astounding ovation, but also brought forward the rivalry between Mazrui and Soyinka, after the latter has allegedly accused Ali Mazrui of being a ‘fundamentalist.’ The presentation raised a lot of eyebrows especially since Northern Nigerian was struggling with the loss of political power. Some newspapers even wrote editorials criticizing Professor Mazrui for being a stooge in the hands of northern establishment. After the lecture, a reception was organized in the evening at the faculty of Law for the Professor, but it was an opportunity for many to listen once more to this great son of Africa. It was during this session that Professor Abubakar Rasheed and the late Professor Alkali Abba asked Ali Mazrui an interesting question about ‘cloning’ from an Islamic perspective, and in his characteristic humility, Professor Mazrui suggested that, since Professor Sani Zahraddeen was around, and as a Professor of Islamic Studies, he was more qualified to answer that question. I have heard so many good stories about Ali Mazrui from Dr. Abubakar Alhassan, whom I also believe is in the best position to narrate them, but one thing is clear, Africa has lost a son, the intellectual community have lost a scholar, and to the politicians an adviser willing to say it as it is. As stated by Darryl C Thomas in the 1998 collection of essays entitled “the Global African: A Portrait of Ali Mazrui” edited by Omari H Kokole, “Mazrui has continued with the tradition established by other African scholars and activists, focusing on the triple heritage, reaffirming African, Western and Islamic traditions in the African and African diaspora experiences” (p. 79). Mazrui has written significantly in different areas, but the triple heritage thesis might be the contribution he will be most remembered for. Our sincere condolences to his family, friends, colleagues, students and other well-wishers. May Allah forgive his shortcomings and grant him Jannatul Firdaus, Amin.
No fewer than 274 British lawmakers have voted resoundingly in favour of a Palestinian state, in a debate that may not change government policy but laden with political symbolism. After a lenghty debate, only 12 of the lawmakers voted against the motion even as the opposition Labour Party leader, Ed Miliband, who is Jewish, voted in support of the motion. Prime Minister David Cameron and other government leaders abstained, and more than half of the 650 Commons members did not participate in the vote. The initial motion that was debated declared: “This House urges the government to recognize the State of Palestine alongside the State of Israel.” It was subsequently amended to add the phrase “as a contribution to securing a negotiated two-state solution.” The House of Commons debate was watched around the world after Sweden drew anger from Israel this month for saying it would recognize Palestine. The motion was initiated by backbencher Grahame Morris from the main opposition Labour party, who said Britain had a “moral responsibility” to act because of its history as colonial power in the region. The vote was especially symbolic given that Britain was the mandatory power in Palestine from 1920-1948, when the State of Israel was founded, and that Britain’s Balfour Declaration of 1917 was a significant milestone en route to the revival of Jewish statehood. “It’s absolutely clear that Israel-Palestine relations are stuck at an impasse, as is our foreign policy,” Morris said, opening the debate. “Both of these impasses must be broken. We hear a great deal of talk about the two-state solution but today, through validating both states, members will have the opportunity to translate all of that principled talk into action.” Conservative lawmaker, Nicholas Soames — grandson of World War II Prime Minister Winston Churchill — said: “to recognize Palestine is both morally right and is in our national interest.” In what the Guardian described as “possibly the single most important contribution in an emotional debate,” Sir Richard Ottaway, the Conservative chairman of the foreign affairs select committee, said the Netanyahu government’s recent annexation of land in the Etzion Bloc area of the West Bank had cost Israel his support. He said he had long been a supporter of Israel, adding: “I was a friend of Israel long before I became a Tory. My wife’s family were instrumental in the creation of the Jewish state.” But, he went on, “I realize now Israel has slowly been drifting away from world public opinion. The annexation of the 950 acres of the West Bank just a few months ago has outraged me more than anything else in my political life. It has made me look a fool and that is something I deeply resent.” Ordinarily, he would have opposed the motion, he said, adding that he was not convinced Palestine was fit to be a state due to its refusal to recognize Israel. But “such is my anger with the behavior of Israel in recent months that I will not be opposing this motion. I have to say to the government of Israel: if it is losing people like me, it is going to be losing a lot of people,” Ottaway said. The vote is non-binding as it was initiated by a backbencher. Members of the government, which backs a two-state solution, abstained from the vote. Prime Minister David Cameron’s official spokesman said: “We think that… you should do everything you can that’s supportive of a successful and sustainable outcome based on a two-state solution.” During the debate, the government’s Middle East Minister Tobias Ellwood said that a Palestinian state would only be recognized at the appropriate moment. “The aspirations of the Palestinian people cannot be fully realised until there is an end to the occupation… and we believe this will only come through negotiations,” Ellwood said. “Only an end to the occupation will ensure that Palestinian statehood becomes a reality on the ground. The UK will bilaterally recognise a Palestinian state when we judge that it can best help bring about the peace.” The leaders of Morris’s party, Labour, said that MPs who were in the Commons when the vote took place had to back it. However, a number of high-profile figures were reportedly uncomfortable with the motion and did not show up. Neither Cameron nor Labour leader Miliband was in the Commons chamber for the start of the debate, but Miliband arrived later and voted for the motion. An online petition paving the way for the debate attracted more than 111,000 signatures, Morris said. Before the debate, a handful of protesters gathered in pouring rain outside the Houses of Parliament, where they had erected a giant banner saying: “Yes Vote for a Palestinian State.” “If there is a state, the aggression would stop and the healing could begin,” said one of them, Eddie Clarke. “We feel this parliament has a duty to vote for it.” The Palestinian Authority estimates that 134 countries have recognized Palestine as a state, although the number is disputed since several recognition by what are now European Union member states date to the Soviet era. Britain abstained in 2012 from a vote in the United Nations on giving the Palestinians the rank of observer state, which was granted over the objections of the United States and Israel. Morris sought to persuade lawmakers that statehood for Palestine through negotiation was not the best way forward. “To make our recognition of Palestine dependent on Israel’s agreement would be to grant Israel a veto over Palestinian self-determination,” he said. But Malcolm Rifkind, Conservative foreign secretary between 1995 and 1997, argued that the Palestinians lacked the basic structures needed for a state due in part to political splits between Hamas and Fatah. “Recognizing a state should only happen when the territory in question has got the basic requirements of a state and through no fault of the Palestinians, that is not true at the moment,” he said. Rifkind warned that voting for the motion could “make ourselves feel important” while exacerbating existing problems.
The North Korean President, Kim Jong-un, who had been out of public glare since September 3, thus heightening fear that he was missing, today repeared in public. Kim Jong-un, was seen today visiting a housing development, using a walking stick for support, according to state media reports. This development has brought to an end, the leader’s lengthy absence from public view that had prompted speculation over his health and grip on power in the secretive country. Several images on the front page of today’s Rodong Sinmun, the newspaper of the ruling party, showed Kim smiling and gesturing, surrounded by aides and wearing his signature dark buttoned suit and appearing to be supporting himself with a black stick. Kim, 31, had not appeared in public since attending a concert with his wife on September 3, missing an important political anniversary on Friday as well as a recent session of the country’s parliament. Al Jazeera’s Teresa Bo, reporting from Pyongyang said, “The video had no date in it, so it’s not clear exactly when this happened but it appeared on state television on early Tuesday morning.” A story in the official KCNA news agency on two public appearances by Kim was dated Tuesday but did not specify on which day he made the visits. It also did not mention Kim’s lengthy absence from public view. The KCNA story, which was typical of the state media’s chronicling of Kim’s activities, said he “gave field guidance” to the new Wisong Scientists Residential District and visited the newly built Natural Energy Institute of the State Academy of Sciences. North Korean officials had denied that Kim’s public absence since early September was health-related. Officials in both the US and South Korea had said recently that there were no indications Kim was in political trouble. A source with access to the North’s leadership said on Thursday that Kim was in firm control of the country but had hurt his leg taking part in a military drill. Kim, who has visibly gained weight since coming to power after his father died of a heart attack in 2011, had been seen walking with a limp since an event with officials in July. His prolonged absence from public view was not the first. In June 2012, six months after coming to power, state media failed to report on or photograph him for 23 days.
He reappeared the next month, visiting a dolphinarium.
Nigeria’s Super Eagles’ loss to Sudan national team, the Falcons on Saturday, in a qualifier for the 2015 Africa Cup of Nations (AFCON) has unsettled the sports minister, Tammy Danagogo, saying that he is yet to recover from the shock which the defeat brought to him and Nigeria. The Falcons beat the Eagle 1-0 in Khartoum, the Sudanese capital.
The result of the match placed the Eagles at the bottom of its group, with South Africa leading the group with seven points, Congo; six points, while Sudan; three points.
Danagogo told newsmen on Monday that he was pained that Nigeria lost to Sudan for the first time since 1967, adding: “I am trying to overcome that loss; it was a shocking defeat and indeed I was really pained, Nigeria was pained too.
“But as sportsmen, we know that when you go into the field it’s either you win or you lose, so it has happened. We are trying to see how we can move forward from there.
The minister, however, expressed optimism that the Eagles would turn the table around, going by the criticisms the team faced after the loss.
He wondered why the country which is AFCON defending champions, should be struggling to qualify from a group which had teams that were made up of local players. [myad]
“The way to run a modern government is to run it as a business. If you do not know how to run businesses, you certainly don’t have any business running government.” These are parts of the policy agenda of former Vice President and presidential aspirant on the platform of the All Progressives Congress (APC) Atiku Abubakar which he unvieled today in Abuja. Atiku made it clear that private sector will lead way to the economic revival of Nigeria, stressing that private sector is a better facilitator of job creation than government. Atiku said that he would use the instrumentality of tax rebates to encourage the private sector to create more jobs. “A lot of time people have asked me if my strategy of using tax rebate as a tool for private sector job creation will not reduce the income coming from government. “My answer is that those people who will be employed in the jobs that are created will be taxable as well and thus government is even going to make more money. According to him: “the draft policy was drawn up within the context of the manifesto of the APC and the document provides an overview of our policy position – the main thrust of which is the explicit bid to modify the way the machinery of the Federal Government works.” The draft policy contains key policy areas which include employment generation and wealth creation; infrastructure and power; education and skill acquisition; security; citizenship and governance; agriculture and food security and Niger-Delta and North-East re-integration. Each of the key policy areas has sub-components that make allowance for broad inclusiveness which will make the policies have direct impact on ordinary Nigerians. In the specific area of energy and infrastructure, the Atiku draft policy says government will, “create sustainable funding structures to drive infrastructure and power development; invest in local government capacity to develop and expand infrastructural provision and review the federation account and restructure government finances to boost infrastructure development.” In the area of security, the draft policy promises to: “aggressively combat the scourge of terrorism and insurgency by increased resources and better co-ordination between the security agencies; replace the security adviser with a National Security Council; improved civil-military relations; pave way for the establishment of state police and clarify local government and state boundaries to pre-empt and defuse inter-communal conflicts.” According to him: “the days have gone when government will announce 7 or 9 points agenda. What we are bringing on board are proposals that are unprecedented in the way government business of governance is conducted in this country.” Earlier in his address, the Director General of the Atiku Campaign Organization, Professor Babalola Borishade noted that the draft policy will be exhaustively reviewed by a review panel comprising policy experts later in the month at the Obasanjo Presidential Library in Otta, Ogun State.
President Goodluck Jonathan has sent a sympathy message to his former boss, ex governor of Bayelsa state, Chief Diepreye Alamieyeseigha, whose son, Oyamuyefa died today in Dubai. The President said that he received with shock and immense sadness news of the death of Oyamuyefa in Dubai at the weekend. In a statement by his spokesman, Dr. Reuben Abati, President Jonathan condoled with the family of his former boss over the untimely loss of a very dear son in the prime of his life. The President said that he and his wife, the First Lady, Dame Patience Jonathan share their pain and grief over the death of Oyamuyefa in circumstances that are still unclear. He assured Chief Alamieyeseigha and his family of the full support of the Federal Government as they strive to unravel the true circumstances of the young man’s death. He prayed to God to receive Oyamuyefa’s soul and comfort his grieving parents and siblings.
Ministers of Defence and Foreign Affairs of Chad, Niger, Cameroon and Benin Republic arrived in Abuja, Nigeria’s federal capital today to begin work with Nigerian on a legal framework for the cross-border military operations approved by the neighbouring heads of state in Niamey. The team, on arrival, went on a courtesy visit to President Goodluck Jonathan at the Presidential Villa. They were accompanied to the Presidential Villa by Nigeria’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ambassador Aminu Wali and the Chief of Defence Staff, Air Chief Marshal Alex Badeh. The visiting ministers at the audience with President Jonathan were Niger’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Mohammed Bazoun, Cameroon’s Minister of External Relations, Mr. Pierre Moukoko Mbonjo, Chad’s Minister of Defence, Mr. Benaindo Tatola, Chad’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Muossa Faki Mahamat, Niger’s Minister of Defence, Mr. K. Mahamadou, Benin’s Minister of Defence, Mr. Robert Yarou, Benin’s Minister of Foreign Affairs. Mr. Nassirou Bako Arifari and Cameroon’s Minister of Defence, Mr. Edgar Alain Debe Ngo’o. Receiving the ministers, President Jonathan made it clear that Boko Haram and other crminals can only be dealth with through cooperation amongst neigbouring countries. He is confident that with the intensification of joint patrols, military operations and intelligence sharing by Nigeria and neighbouring countries as agreed by their leaders in Niamey last week, the activities of insurgents and other cross-border criminals will soon be drastically curtailed. “I believe that if we cooperate more and monitor our borders closely, the movement of criminals and terrorists as well as small arms and ammunition across our shared borders will also be drastically reduced.” The President said that with their collective experience and professionalism, he expected the visiting ministers and their Nigerian counterparts to come up with an effective action plan for the successful implementation of the decisions reached by the leaders of Nigeria, Chad, Niger, Cameroon and Benin Republic at their meeting in Niamey on October 7, 2014. At that meeting, the leaders announced plans to step up the fight against Boko Haram. A communiqué issued after the meeting said that a command centre for a multinational force headed by a chief of staff will be in place by November 20. The leaders also agreed to finalise the deployment of troops promised by member states to form the multinational force within their national borders by November 1.
As a habit, the only virtue former President Olusegun Obasajo’s critics will grudgingly concede to him is his matchless love for his country, his obsessive patriotism that set him apart from all his peers, in war and in peace. Once while serving as Chief of Staff Supreme Headquarters, the military equivalent of Vice President to General Murtala Muhammed, Obasanjo was about to enter a crucial State meeting when he received a message that his two-year old son Dayo, had just died. Obasanjo went into the meeting and participated actively. Afterwards he informed his colleagues that he had lost his son just before the meeting. Appalled, his colleagues wondered why he didn’t rush home in the light of something so serious. His response was perhaps the best definition of his robust, vigorous, sometimes turbulent but always passionate relationship with his country. He said, as narrated by one of his biographers Adinoyi Ojo Onukaba: “My son is dead, I cannot bring him back. This country is waiting and I cannot keep her waiting”. Even in that period of nationalistic fervor, it is hard to imagine any act that could beat that. Later in life he was to reaffirm this passionate love for country in different guises, including when he was called upon to be the head of state after the assassination of General Murtala Muhammed. Obasanjo refused, declaring that he was through with the army and everything associated with government since the nation is so unappreciative. He refused to budge despite pleas from powerful colleagues. Again according to Onukaba, it was only after an inspired General Abisoye had pointedly suggested that if Obasanjo would not accept, then they might as well invite leader of the failed coup that claimed Muhammed’s life, Col. Dimka to take over, that Obasanjo felt sufficiently moved to accept the challenge. Not many people would also give Baba the credit he rightly deserved over what he did when he took over. He lived up to his promises, following in Muhammed’s footsteps to the letter: from the pan-African thrust of their foreign policy which weakened Apartheid and helped to liberate some Southern African countries, to the courageous nationalists policies which revived national pride among Nigerians; to the all-important midwifing of the first ever successful transition from military to civilian rule in 1979. And yet despite all the many sacrifices that Baba had done for his country, his critics still prefer to judge him from their jaundiced perspective. But that is changing, ipso facto. Nowadays former President Obasanjo’s critics are either relapsing into silence, or sheepishly shifting ground, reluctantly, grudgingly admitting that they had been wrong about him all along. When Baba’s son Lt. Col. Adeboye was shot in combat while fighting insurgents in Adamawa, one of his ardent critics, Col. Dangiwa Umar called me to admit that if Baba could allow his own son to be in the line of fire even though he could shield him with a single phone call, he (Umar) sends his best salute; admitting, finally that Baba is genuine. Not that it ever matters to Baba who is applauding. Then there was the funny issue of a so called Third Term. Baba is possibly the only one of the 170 million Nigerians that is being judged, convicted and sentenced for an offense he never committed! Some people have shockingly and stubbornly insisted that Baba was the sponsor of the advocacy for a tenure elongation campaign which sought to grant him a third term in office. On his part, he had consistently insisted that he had nothing to do with it, and had challenged anybody with clear evidence to the contrary to come forward. Nobody has so far been able to provide such evidence (former FCT minister Nasir el-Rufai’s attempt in his book was no more than an unsubstantiated claim). And, in spite of himself, el-Rufai was indeed among the earliest callers to the Abeokuta residence of Baba to seek his countenance in his (el-Rufai’s) political adventures. That in itself is enough to counteract whatever allegations are contained in the former minister’s book of disputed recollections. Even those who ask the logical question of why Baba did not stop the advocates of tenure elongation are merely being mischievous. The former president has maintained that he did not stop them because he was convinced the best way to kill the project once and for all was to allow it to exhaust itself; reasoning, correctly, that if those who pushed for it tried and failed, then no one would ever try it again. Which was exactly what happened. The infamous project ran its course, got burnt out and died at the cradle of all democracies–the Legislature; and our democracy was the richer for it. And that is why, thank God, Baba now has the moral authority to tell Mr. Jonathan, who is himself toying with a similar idea, “Don’t do it.” After 2007, Baba had kept a respectable distance from Aso Rock. Until the need arose when then President Yar’Adua’s terminal illness presented a political crisis that required a commanding voice to intervene. Again Baba stepped forward and advised Yar’Adua to “take the part of hounour” by relinquishing power since he was apparently too sick to carry on. That remark set in motion the series of events that enabled Mr. Jonathan to assume power as Acting President. This stabilized the polity and prevented what could have been a protracted political stalemate. After helping to install Mr. Jonathan as elected President in 2011, Baba again retreated to his farm, playing the international statesman, gradually supplanting the ailing Nelson Mandela as Africa’s pre-eminent political compas.If all the major players in the Nigerian project had abided by their covenants, the stage was set for an orderly, progressive transition in 2015 when a general election would usher in a new government that was to consolidate the nation’s democracy and move it to the next level. But by the end of 2012, dangerous flaws had began to emerge in the way Mr. Jonathan was running his government. It appeared he was president in name only, and that a provincial coterie of ethnic sycophants were inexorably determined to manipulate Mr. Jonathan’s soft demeanor to achieve personal objectives that are often in direct conflict with national interest. Again, Baba, fearless, ageless and selfless stepped forward. After three discreet letters to the President which were not even acknowledged, Baba, in December 2013, released what turned out to be the most dispassionate and candid advice to his erstwhile mentee, in the form of an open letter entitled: “Before it is too Late.” Although the letter was nuanced, candid, dignified and stately, it provoked the anger of the regime; and after a week, the government response was to ignore the issues that the letter highlighted concerning the fledgling war on corruption, the deteriorating state of the economy, the decimation of the middle class which Baba had helped to revive, and worst of all, the raging insurgency that was threatening the very foundation of the country, and instead lamely and depressingly concentrated on insisting that Baba lacked the moral right to say the obvious. Now, nearly one year after that letter, all the fears and concerns that Baba had raised in the letter were coming to pass. Unfortunately. But, characteristically, Baba remained undaunted. By August, when it emerged that Baba’s son had been injured in action while leading troops in the very dangerous battleground of the North East, the whole world, Nigerians in particular, put aside their prejudices and purged themselves of all sentiments and admitted that indeed, the former President, Olusegun Obasanjo towers head and shoulders above all his peers in his love, commitment and service to his country. Thereafter, the pilgrimage to Abeokuta started: The opposition All Progressives Congress leadership, the PDP leadership, the National Assembly leadership and dozens of other political significant others all started queuing up to get a chance to pay homage, declare loyalty, or simply flow with the tide as they jostle to be in the good books of this tireless soldier who is always one step ahead of everybody. This is where we are: Once again, former President Olusegun Obasanjo is poised to play a decisive role in the course of Nigeria’s chequered history. There is no prize though for guessing what he would do: he would put the nation first , second, and last. The puzzle is to guess how he would react to the avalanche of courtship that are pouring in. So far, Baba hasn’t responded, nor has he asked anyone to respond on his behalf. But we can speculate, especially since the stakes are so high that no one can possibly be immune to the consequences of whatever the present tragi-comedy situation eventual throws up.Those who know former President Olusegun Obasanjo closely often smile benignly when an enthralled public expresses perplexity over what they perceive as Mr. Obasanjo’s increasingly intriguing behavioral swings. One moment he is cradling and nursing; the next he is ruthless and unrelenting. He is enigma itself. Back in 2007 when Baba left office after successfully nurturing the first civilian to civilian transition, national public opinion about him was mixed. Those who never wavered in their criticism of him regardless of how many angels are swearing he is right, maintained their position and accused him of influencing the presidential election in favour of his party, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). They gave the former president no credit for anything he might have done right leading to the swearing in of Umaru Yar’Adua as his successor. Those with moderate views took a more nuanced position and reluctantly admitted that warts and all, Obasanjo had once again steered the country through to another milestone. But outside the country, it was praises from east to west, from China to America to Europe. His friends in Africa, notably Nelson Mandela, Thabo Mbeki, John Kufour and the younger crop of African leaders who see him as a father figure were effusive in their appreciation of his stewardship of Nigeria. The world felt, and indicated by its actions in the way it feted him, that there was hope yet for the Word’s largest, richest and most influential black nation. And in the estimation of the outside world, it was all thanks to the man who had ruled the country twice, 20 years apart; first as a military head of state (1976-1979) and later as a democratically elected civilian president (1999-2007) for a cumulative period of 11 years. As the nation waits and Nigerians speculate on what Baba would do next, here is wishing the Grand Patron of the Republic God’s continous guidance so that, as he had done many times in the past, he would be the catalyst to the solution of what is seen by many as our country’s most dangerous challenge ever. Equally important is also the hope and prayer that President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan, would reflect deeply on his self confessed humble beginnings, the blessings that God has showered on him through no effort of his; consider his present circumstances and honestly search his soul; take an honest look at the dangerous egg shells that dot his future; and muster the courage to emulate his mentor by putting the country above any other considerations. It is not yet too late. But time is running out.
Garba Deen Muhammed is Honorary Media Adviser to former President Obasanjo.
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
“The way to run a modern government is to run it as a business. If you do not know how to run businesses, you certainly don’t have any business running government.”
Ministers of Defence and Foreign Affairs of Chad, Niger, Cameroon and Benin Republic arrived in Abuja, Nigeria’s federal capital today to begin work with Nigerian on a legal framework for the cross-border military operations approved by the neighbouring heads of state in Niamey.
As a habit, the only virtue former President Olusegun Obasajo’s critics will grudgingly concede to him is his matchless love for his country, his obsessive patriotism that set him apart from all his peers, in war and in peace. Once while serving as Chief of Staff Supreme Headquarters, the military equivalent of Vice President to General Murtala Muhammed, Obasanjo was about to enter a crucial State meeting when he received a message that his two-year old son Dayo, had just died. Obasanjo went into the meeting and participated actively. Afterwards he informed his colleagues that he had lost his son just before the meeting. Appalled, his colleagues wondered why he didn’t rush home in the light of something so serious. His response was perhaps the best definition of his robust, vigorous, sometimes turbulent but always passionate relationship with his country. He said, as narrated by one of his biographers Adinoyi Ojo Onukaba: “My son is dead, I cannot bring him back. This country is waiting and I cannot keep her waiting”.
